Literature

Welcome to the literature area of the FIC Web site. Here you will find a collection of articles, books, fact sheets and technical memos, reports and studies related to saving farm and ranch land and supporting agriculture. You can filter by state, topic and/or type of document ("category"). Use the Search feature to conduct a more refined search.

Increasing population pressures are threatening to strain current systems of growth and land protecton measures in Colorado's Tri-River Region. Delta, Mesa, Montrose and Ouray counties are home to some of our state's most valuable agricultural land and important conservation areas.

Using county and municipal data, analysts evaluated how land use policies might influence development patterns, and estimated their associated costs to local governments in Delta, Mesa, Montrose and Ouray counties in Colorado.

California’s Central Valley is the nation’s most important agricultural resource, producing 250 different commodities worth more than $13 billion a year. The valley’s population is expected to triple between now and the year 2040, putting tremendous pressure on agricultural land and public services. Low-density urban sprawl would consume more than 1 million acres of farmland by 2040 and could reduce the value of agricultural products grown in the Central Valley by about $2.1 billion annually. The tragic waste of agricultural resources and tax dollars can be avoided by encouraging more compact, efficient growth in the Central Valley. Basic goals that would improve the bottom line for Central Valley agriculture and taxpayers are: Housing developments that make more efficient use of land; commercial development and public facilities that minimize the amount of farmland and water they consume; new development that is contiguous to existing developed areas; maximum infill development of vacant and underused land within city limits. A GIS database created to generate and manage data on existing land uses and spatial relationships was used to characterize current growth patterns in the region and to calculate probabilities for future development. With stronger planning and political leadership supporting a compact-development pattern, the projected land loss could be reduced by more than half. The use of reasonable urban design strategies can reduce the total farmland loss to 475,000 acres, of which only 266,000 are prime or statewide important farmland. An economic analysis of low density versus compact urban growth projects by 2040 a growth of 8 million new residents, while the growth of employment is estimated at more than 3.2 million jobs.

California’s Central Valley is the nation’s most important agricultural resource, producing 250 different commodities worth more than $13 billion a year. The valley’s population is expected to triple between now and the year 2040, putting tremendous pressure on agricultural land and public services. Low-density urban sprawl would consume more than 1 million acres of farmland by 2040 and could reduce the value of agricultural products grown in the Central Valley by about $2.1 billion annually. The tragic waste of agricultural resources and tax dollars can be avoided by encouraging more compact, efficient growth in the Central Valley. Basic goals that would improve the bottom line for Central Valley agriculture and taxpayers are: Housing developments that make more efficient use of land; commercial development and public facilities that minimize the amount of farmland and water they consume; new development that is contiguous to existing developed areas; maximum infill development of vacant and underused land within city limits. A GIS database created to generate and manage data on existing land uses and spatial relationships was used to characterize current growth patterns in the region and to calculate probabilities for future development. With stronger planning and political leadership supporting a compact-development pattern, the projected land loss could be reduced by more than half. The use of reasonable urban design strategies can reduce the total farmland loss to 475,000 acres, of which only 266,000 are prime or statewide important farmland. An economic analysis of low density versus compact urban growth projects by 2040 a growth of 8 million new residents, while the growth of employment is estimated at more than 3.2 million jobs.

The Conservation Reserve Program was created by Congress in 1985 to remove highly erodible cropland from production and thus reduce soil erosion and crop surpluses. The program is aimed at enrolling 40- 45 million acres out of an estimated 118 million acres of highly erodible cropland. As of November 1987, 23 million acres had been placed in the Conservation Reserve. The program is strictly voluntary. Landowners may receive an annual rental payment and half the cost of approved conservation measures. In return, landowners must retire highly erodible cropland from production for ten years. Over 200,000 landowners have each enrolled an average of 110 acres at a cost to the U.S. Treasury of more than $50,000 per landowner. The total cost of the Conservation Reserve Program currently exceeds $12 billion. Whether the long-term benefits of the program can justify the cost remains in doubt. The program has an effective life of only ten years. A more direct and effective long-term means of reducing soil erosion and crop surpluses might be to have the federal government purchase farmland to create a national strategic cropland reserve.

American Farmland is published four times a year by American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1980 to protect the nation’s agricultural resources. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Basic annual membership dues are $25. Membership benefits include a year’s subscription to the award-­winning magazine, American Farmland, and a 10-percent discount on all AFT publications and merchandise. Membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law. To become a member, visit www.farmland.org/support/join.

American Farmland is published four times a year by American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1980 to protect the nation’s agricultural resources. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Basic annual membership dues to American Farmland Trust are $25. Membership benefits include a year’s subscription to the print edition of American Farmland. Membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law. To become a member, visit www.farmland.org/support/join.

American Farmland is published four times a year by American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1980 to protect the nation’s agricultural resources. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Basic annual membership dues to American Farmland Trust are $25. Membership benefits include a year’s subscription to the print edition of American Farmland. Membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law. To become a member, visit www.farmland.org/support/join.

American Farmland is published four times a year by American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1980 to protect the nation’s agricultural resources. AFT works to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Basic annual membership dues to American Farmland Trust are $25. Membership benefits include a year’s subscription to the print edition of American Farmland. Membership contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law. To become a member, visit www.farmland.org/support/join.

This CAE working paper considers the applications of normative and positive economics to natural resource problems. It concludes with a light hearted "users guide" for the effective involvement of economists in natural resource management. As a normative science, economics can help reveal how resources should used. As a positive science, economics provides a useful set of concepts and analytical tools that help predict patterns of resource use within a defined set of market and decision rules. Economists can be particularly effective participants in multi-disciplinary teams involved in both management and analysis of public and private resources if the author's "user's guide" is followed. Areas of high priority for natural resource economists include: 1) working towards a better understanding of the policy process as a precursor to improved natural resource policy; 2) developing ways to infer intensity or extent of effective demand for natural resource attributes that are not captured in a market price e.g. charging individual citizens for the perceived benefits of endangered species habitat; 3) more work on the economics of cooperation to aid developing better, more practical systems for managing common property resources like rangeland; and studying the effect of changing incentives on the choices made by rangeland users.

This paper addresses conservation policies and conservation problem areas from the past and present. It begins with an overview of the challenges facing conservation during the 1930s and 1940s. The paper continues by tracking the emergence of the Soil Conservation Service. As SCS began taking over functions other agencies, turf battles began. SCS broadened its mission, leading to conflicts with extension, interior Forest Service, among other agencies. Conservation at that time was defined as what SCS decided to do. Gradually conservation districts developed and evolved, their importance and role in conservation and democracy intertwined. The issue of property rights emerged as some saw individual rights pitted against other people's proposition to use the land for soil conservation purposes. The final sections in the paper take the issues of conservation to the present and discuss the relevance of questions from the past to issues of present and future.

In metropolitan Atlanta, the city and suburbs are competing for new development and the economic opportunity that accompanies it. The suburbs are winning this competition and the result is sprawl and urban decay. This outcome is not simply a function of the free market. Government policy decisions have a pervasive influence on the market for land and its use. If we want to change land use patterns, we must change public policy.

Three economists from Georgia universities studied taxes and fees development regulations and procedures, redevelopment incentives and transportation policies, all of which have a strong influence on land use in Metro Atlanta. Based on an analysis of the internal rate of return of four hypothetical development projects at five urban and suburban locations, they concluded that public policies contribute to the greater profitability of all types of development at three suburban locations than at two locations within the City of Atlanta. The accuracy of these results is confirmed by how closely they mirror the kinds of development that are actually occurring in the region.

The cost of land, averaging 8 times higher in the city than in the suburbs, is the single most important factor favoring suburban development. Though its price is a function of market supply and demand, the demand for land for development on the suburban edge of the metro region has been greatly increased by the construction of highways. This policy decision has brought thousands of acres of remote rural land into competition with the city, while creating enormous wealth in the outskirts by increasing private land values by $10,000 per acre.

Higher city rental rates offset the land cost advantage of the suburbs to some extent, particularly for apartments. Development requirements like parking spaces, as well as the longer period it takes to receive permission to build in the city, also play major roles in giving the suburbs a competitive advantage. Taxes and impact fees give a smaller but still significant advantage to the suburbs. On the other hand, the abatement of taxes in urban enterprise and empowerment zones in the city is an important counterweight to the advantage conferred on the suburbs by other policies. These trends were corroborated by a survey of local developers.

The researchers' analysis was reviewed by academic peers and discussed at a roundtable meeting of local private and public leaders. This report also contains a summary of their views. Based on the research and views of local leaders, this report recommends that consideration be given to a number of policy changes to level the playing field between the City of Atlanta and its suburbs and, thus, to curb sprawl and improve the quality of life in the entire metro Atlanta region:

- Augment tax incentives for enterprise zone development in the City of Atlanta, paying particular attention to attracting middle class housing to the downtown area. Accompany this with stronger "brownfield" development incentives and indemnities. -Streamline the zoning and development approval processes in the city of Atlanta to reduce delays that add to developers' costs, while maintaining adequate public input. -Examine current city specifications for developer-provided infrastructure and make changes to lower developers' costs while still meeting public needs. Pay particular attention to requirements for parking spaces, which are much more costly to provide downtown than in the suburbs. -Consider a tax surcharge on downtown parking lots to encourage their development and lower overall city land costs. Study a two-tier property tax system like the one that has contributed to the revitalization of downtown Pittsburgh by encouraging development of vacant land. -Recapture a portion of the windfall increase in suburban land values that has resulted from construction of highways and other infrastructure. Without this, the chances of revitalizing downtown and curbing the effects of sprawl on everyone in the region may be futile. Possibilities for windfall recapture include regional revenue-sharing like that adopted by Minneapolis-St. Paul, and a regional impact fee on new development that reflects the impact that sprawl has on the core of Adanta and, hence, the entire metro region. Reinvest the proceeds in downtown Atlanta and perhaps older suburbs that may suffer the same competitive disadvantage because of public policy decisions. -Ask suburban development to pay more of its full marginal cost for public services. Begin by changing the rules on impact fees to allow one jurisdiction to recover costs caused by development in another. -Adopt a more regional approach to land use planning and decisionmaking. A promising opportunity for starting this may be the pending proposal to harness state transportation funding as an incentive. All of these proposals are offered, not as a definitive policy agenda, but as a contribution to a more urgent and focused discussion on the future of land use trends and the quality of life in metropolitan Atlanta.